Furthermore, we show that scale frames are powerful discursive devices in the different episodes (power-in), but the analysis of the
5.2 Framework to Analyse the Interplay between Scale Framing and Power Dynamics in Governance Processes
Policymaking in Deliberative Governance Processes
Following Stone (2012), we do not see policymaking as a rational process.
Policies ‘are not simply external, generalised or constraining forces, nor are they confined to texts. Rather, they are productive, performative and continually contested’ (Shore & Wright, 2011, p. 1). In this paper, we take a processual approach to policymaking (see also Shore & Wright, 2011). The assumption behind process thinking is that social reality is not a steady state, but rather a dynamic process (Pettigrew, 1997). Pettigrew (1997, p. 338) defines a process as ‘a sequence of individual and collective events, actions, and activities unfolding over time in context’.
Central in a processual approach is thus the sequence of events, in the case of policymaking also referred to as policymaking episodes (Barzelay &
Gallego, 2006), or decision-making rounds (Teisman, 2000). In this paper, we use the term episode. As Teisman (2000) explains, in different episodes the interaction between different actors results in one or more definitions of problems and solutions. An episode begins and ends with the adoption of a certain combination of a problem definition and a (virtual) solution by one or more actors (Teisman, 2000).
In addition to the different episodes, the role of context is crucial to understand the process (Pettigrew, 1997). As Pettigrew (1997, pp. 338-339) explains: ‘Actions drive processes but processes cannot be explained just by reference to individual or collective agency. Actions are embedded in contexts which limit their information, insight and influence. But the dual quality of agents and contexts must always be recognised’. Contexts are both shaping and shaped. Actors are producers and products (Giddens, 1979). This swapping between agents and contexts is cumulative and occurs over time (Pettigrew, 1997).
Thus, in our view, policymaking is an on-going, dynamic, interactional, adaptive process, consisting of a sequence of episodes unfolding over time in context. The governance process that we are studying consists of several episodes and is part of a larger on-going process (see Figure 5.1).
We study part of the policy process about the future of intensive agriculture in the Netherlands as an example of a deliberative governance process. The central idea behind deliberative governance is that ‘policy making requires spaces where different institutions, agencies, groups, activists and individual citizens can come together to deliberate on pressing social issues’ (Hendriks, 2009, p. 173).
| The power to frame the scale?
| Framing scales and scaling frames | Chapter 5
136 137
Scale Framing
In governance processes, actors in interaction strategically deploy scale frames with the purpose of effecting change (Delaney & Leitner, 1997).
Through the process of framing, actors highlight different aspects of a situation as relevant, problematic or urgent (Gray, 2003; Entman, 1995), and by doing so situate issues on different levels and scales (Dewulf &
Bouwen, 2008; Scholten, 2012; Van Lieshout et al., 2011). In this way, scale frames can lead to intended or unintended inclusion and exclusion of actors, ideas and possible solutions in policy processes (Kurtz, 2003). Previous research has shown that actors in (governance) interactions continuously use different scale frames to accomplish various goals (Van Lieshout et al., 2011; Van Lieshout, et al., 2012). These activities, known as the politics of scale (cf. Delaney & Leitner, 1997; Jonas, 1994), or scalar politics (MacKinnon, 2011), are fiercely disputed, as actors endeavour to restructure power and responsibilities (Kurtz, 2003; Leitner, 2004). In order to study scalar politics in governance processes, we conceptualise this as the interplay between scale frames, as just explained, and power dynamics, to which we now turn.
Power Dynamics
In order to analyse the power dynamics on both the interactional level (within the different episodes) and the process level, we draw on Torfing, Peters, Pierre, and Sørensen (2012, p. 49). They suggest analysing not only ‘power-in’
interactive governance but also of’ interactive governance and ‘power-over’ interactive governance. For our purposes, we adapt these perspectives on power in interactional terms in a way that allows us to capture power dynamics in and between policy episodes. In Figure 5.2, we schematically present the three different perspectives.
By analysing power-over, we focus on the organiser’s power to design the governance process. This perspective helps us to analyse how the design of the process (i.e. the context of the episodes) influences the interactions and the outcomes, and which scale frames are taken to the next episode (see also Arminen, 2005; Fairclough, 2001; Thornborrow, 2002); and conversely we analyse how the constructed scale frames influence the design of the process in terms of inclusion and exclusion of actors and ideas. Governments/
organisers have the power to open up and close down governance processes (Torfing et al., 2012). This power of the organiser over the process follows from its authority, i.e. its socially acknowledged right to judge, decide, take action and so forth (Hardy & Phillips, 1998; Purdy, 2012), and its formal and acknowledged role as organising actor (Fairclough, 2001; Thornborrow, 2002). The organiser has the power to include various actors and ideas (including particular scale frames) and exclude others (Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Purdy, 2012; Torfing, et al., 2012). Furthermore, the organiser can set the agenda, steer towards particular outcomes (including the reframing of certain scale frames), control the information provided, and decide on note taking, conclusions and documentation (Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Purdy, 2012).
FORMAL
POWER OF POWER OF POWER OF
POWER OVER POWER OVER
Scale Framing
Figure 5.2 | The interplay between power dynamics and scale frames in (delib-erative) governance processes
| The power to frame the scale?
| Framing scales and scaling frames | Chapter 5
EPISODE EPISODE EPISODE EPISODE EPISODE EPISODE
Deliberative Governance Process Policy Process
Figure 5.1 | Deliberative governance process as part of a larger policy process
139 138 By analysing power-in, we focus on the power dynamics within the different
governance episodes, i.e. in conversations between the different actors. The power-in deliberative governance episodes can be influenced by the specific characteristics and/or competences of the actors. For example, their expertise and status (Purdy, 2012), their role (Fairclough, 2001; Thornborrow, 2002), their ability to participate and their discursive capacities (Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Purdy, 2012; Torfing, et al., 2012) can provide actors with power in interaction. For our purpose, we focus on the interplay of power-in dynamics and the process of (scale) framing in interaction. Dewulf and Bouwen (2012) have identified interactional framing strategies that actors use to deal with frame differences, for example frame incorporation and frame polarisation (Dewulf & Bouwen, 2012, p. 179). With regard to scale frames, Van Lieshout et al. (2012) have identified four specific strategies: projections into the future, downscaling, upscaling and scale coupling.
By analysing power-of, we focus on participants’ power to influence the process. As Torfing et al. (2012) explain, power-of studies focus on the way interaction in deliberative governance settings influences the formulation and implementation of policy. This perspective provides insights into how deliberative the process was in terms of taking the participants’ viewpoints to the next episodes. In analysing power-of, we reflect on how participants’ scale framing influences deliberation and how deliberation influences the scale frames taken to the next episode. Power-of dynamics become evident when, for example, participants are able to influence the continuation of the process,
and control or verify the (intermediate) outcomes. A concrete example of power-of is the use of exit power. We assess power-of by analysing the extent to which the scale frames of the participants in an episode can be recognised in the conclusions and subsequent episodes, and the extent to which the participants have the opportunity and are able to reframe their own and others’ scale frames. Reframing can be considered a power-of dynamic when participants are able to successfully challenge the issue frame determined by the organisers.
Following from the above, we can fine-tune our research question:
What is the interplay between the scale framing and the power dynamics at different stages in the governance process about the future of Dutch intensive agriculture? We can specify three sub-questions: What are the implications of the process design for prevailing scale frames and vice versa (power-over)?
What is the role of (scale) framing strategies on prevailing scale frames in the different episodes (power-in)? Are actors able to re-scale-frame the issue, and are these reframed scale frames taken into account in the subsequent episodes (power-of)?
5.3 Methods
Data
We analysed the formal episodes in the governance process of the societal dialogue (see Figure 5.2), starting with the debate in which the Minister of State promised to organise the dialogue. We further analysed the societal dialogue itself (citizen panels, stakeholder dialogue) and the concluding report. In addition, we analysed the letters of the responsible Minister of State as outcomes of the related episodes. The policy process is still continuing, but this selection of episodes forms a logical whole for the purpose of this paper.
Citizens were recruited in five regionally organised citizen panels and a youth panel. The panels consisted of six to eight people and an independent external supervisor/coach. The panels were asked to answer three questions:
How should the Dutch animal husbandry sector look in the future? What does that mean for: 1) the entrepreneurs in the sector and the Dutch economy, 2) the welfare and health of the animals, 3) human health, 4) the environment and 5) the landscape? And which government policy is required?
An internet dialogue was also part of the governance process. We took this episode into account in our analysis; however, since the results were comparable to the panels, and for space reasons, we decided not to include these results here.
Figure 5.3 | Framework for assessing the interplay between power dynamics and scale frames in deliberative governance processes
| The power to frame the scale?
| Framing scales and scaling frames | Chapter 5
140 141 The stakeholder dialogue consisted of a two-day meeting chaired by Hans
Alders (a former politician who has chaired various advisory committees for the Dutch parliament) with representatives of the primary sector, the chain, societal organisations, governments, science and knowledge.
The letters and report are publicly available. As part of the societal dialogue, six citizen panels were recruited. The first author attended the sessions of one of the six citizen panels and recorded the discussions:
the panel for the Noord-Brabant Limburg region 14. The recordings of the last session of this citizen panel were typed out verbatim. The data from the stakeholder dialogue consist of extensive notes and recordings of the discussions. The parts of the discussions involving scale framing were typed out verbatim.
Analysis
In our first analytical step, we reconstructed the policy process around the societal dialogue by creating a timeline of important episodes and the accompanying policy documents/transcripts (Figure 5.4).
Figure 5.4 | Timeline of analysed episodes in the societal dialogue on the future of intensive agriculture in the Netherlands
In the following step, we analysed the power-over, power-of and power-in the different episodes. We used scale frame analysis (Van Lieshout, et al., 2011;
Van Lieshout, et al., 2012) to identify fragments in the transcripts in which scale framing activities occurred. Our analysis is based on the interactive approach to framing (Dewulf, et al., 2009). We focused on how people
14 Since all working visits were organized for the same day, the first author was able to attend only one panel. As we wanted to make a detailed analysis of the whole process, we decided to focus on this panel.
negotiate the proper scale frame by the way they use language (Dewulf, et al., 2004). In this approach, each move in the discussion reveals whether the other party’s framing is accepted or rejected as discussants respectively maintain or alter their own framing in their direct response (Drake &
Donohue, 1996) or next event in the on-going interaction.
We repeatedly read and compared the texts to understand what was happening in and between the different episodes. The content of the transcripts was coded, commented on and interpreted using software for qualitative data analysis (Atlas-ti). To systematically analyse the transcripts, we used a conceptual division (based on an earlier study, see Maartje Van Lieshout, et al., 2011) of agricultural, administrative and time scales (see Table 5.1). The result of this step was a selection of parts of the transcripts in which scale framing activities occurred.
In the third step, using discourse and conversation analysis methods (Edwards, 1997; Phillips & Hardy, 2002; Wood & Kroger, 2000), we examined more closely these selected fragments. In this step, we analysed the framing strategies that actors used to have their scale framing prevail (see e.g. Dewulf
& Bouwen, 2012; Maartje Van Lieshout, et al., 2012).
5.4 Results
In this section, we analyse the selected episodes (see Figure 5.4).
General Deliberation of the EAI Select Committee 11 November, 2010 The topic for deliberation in the Select Committee meeting of 11 November 2010 was sustainable animal husbandry. The setting was a formal, chaired sitting, divided into two predetermined timeslots, with allotted speaking time and interruptions for the spokespersons of the political parties, followed by the reaction and replies of the Minister of State.
A division can be observed between two groups of political parties during the meeting. The first group framed their questions in terms of societal acceptance of the current developments in the animal husbandry sector, i.e.
the development of more and more mega-stables and the various possible consequences thereof. The other parties framed their questions in terms of a level playing field versus stricter national rules in addition to international (EU) regulations. These different (scale) framings of the issue resulted from the powerful ability of spokespersons to lead the debate towards mega-stables and national rules, because the setting allowed them to ask the relevant questions (power-in). As Sacks (1995, p. 55 in Thornborrow, 2002,
| The power to frame the scale?
| Framing scales and scaling frames | Chapter 5
142 143 pp. 60-61) explains: ‘as long as one is in the position of doing the questions,
then in part one has control of the conversation’.
In the following, we focus on the mega-stable frames, since these lead to the promise of the Minister of State to organise the societal dialogue. The spokespersons of the first group of parties frame the developments in the animal husbandry sector as:
perfecting of the animal husbandry industry towards mega-stables, an increase in the concentration of animals, whereby [...] Dutch family farms are wiped out on the world market. (Party for the Animals) 15
The starting point for the policy is and seems to continue to be: the Netherlands with their agriculture have to compete on the world market. The large question for the Green Party is whether societal acceptance and support of citizens can go along with a one-sided focus on the competitive position of the Dutch agricultural sector.
(Green Party)
If power-in is looked at from a (scale)-framing perspective, these quotes point at competition on the world market; this is an example of upscaling to the global level, which would ruin local family farms and exclude small Dutch farmers. This way of framing can also be seen as an example of frame polarisation (polarising the difference by reaffirming one’s own framing or an upgraded version of one’s own framing (Dewulf & Bouwen, 2012).
These and comparable frames in the debate finally resulted in a
prioritisation of the mega-stable issue on the agenda of the Minister of State.
This shows that the members of the Select Committee have power-of this part of the process, since they are able to place their scale frame of the undesired, socially unacceptable mega-stables on the agenda. Their scale framing is taken into account and leads to the promise to organise a ‘broad discussion on the topic’.
The Minister of State, in his response, frames the issue literally as:
The issue concerns the factory-like way of keeping large numbers of animals on one farm or location. We have to acknowledge a discussion about this topic exists here and there in society.
15 We translated the quotes as literally as possible. Changes made by the authors for anonymity or clarifying reasons are between square brackets: […]. [ is the symbol used for people talking simultaneously.
Table 5.1 | Indicators for the selection of scale framing fragments
Scale Levels Examples of scale frames (from earlier studies) Agricultural Crop
• Talking about the NMC [new mixed company], that’s disastrous for small family farms.
• It’s questionable whether so much pork is desirable, since in principle there’s an overproduction in the world and for sure the Netherlands, since 80 to 90%
of the pork is exported […] we state that more atten-tion should be paid to regional producatten-tion [Western Europe].
• If you watch what happens in South America, where gigantic soy plantations are established and a large part of it is transported to feed the pigs here [...]
• Looking at the decision making, we’re not only talking about the municipality, but […] on central, provincial, and municipal level the administrators are all Chris-tian Democrats who already in 2003 have declared they’ll do anything to develop the NMC. The minister was even willing to adapt the law.
• We-ell then I first should have gone to see the provin-cial aldermen, then the Minister of Agriculture and then the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, and that was again open for debate in the Council of State.
• Look and then again you run into the procedures.
Look and we also got the pressure of the Province, yes those agricultural development areas really have to get off to a good start. And then it seems a discus-sion, but it wasn’t.
Time Past
Present Future
• An alternative is that the Netherlands decides inten-sive breeding can’t take place here any longer.
• Yes then it will take another 10 years, right.
• So currently this is the case, but in 10 years’ time I think this is a more logical location.
| The power to frame the scale?
| Framing scales and scaling frames | Chapter 5
144 145 The Minister of State frames the issue in a factual, distanced way as an issue
‘here and there in society’. By doing so, he downscales the issue, making it smaller, and downplays the fact that a fierce debate is going on in both the media and daily conversations (power-in).
Continuing, the Minister of State addresses the spokespersons’ frames:
Looking at the issue rationally, it is possible to keep animals correctly on a very large scale within all the existing rules for the environment. Some even say: in those large entities, with even more modern technology, is even better for controlling emissions and the environment. In the second place, animal health, in the same massive animal husbandry, can be established and protected in a correct, respectable and sometimes in a highly veterinary way.
What the Minister of State does in this response in terms of scale framing is incorporate almost all elements of the spokespersons’ frames in his own argumentation (Dewulf & Bouwen, 2012). He uses the same arguments as the spokespersons, but phrases these in a neutral, distanced way, leaving the adjectives out. In addition, he refutes these by reframing them in ‘rational’
and positive terms.
Furthermore, he upscales the issue by using very positive frames about the value of the Dutch agricultural sector on a global scale level with regard to competition, food production and biodiversity. For example:
Let us take pride in our agricultural and animal husbandry sectors that are developing in an incredible way. [...] These are sectors which can compete on the world market. I think that’s a value in itself. You shouldn’t be ashamed you have a sector in the Netherlands which can amply compete on the world market. Quite the contrary, you
Let us take pride in our agricultural and animal husbandry sectors that are developing in an incredible way. [...] These are sectors which can compete on the world market. I think that’s a value in itself. You shouldn’t be ashamed you have a sector in the Netherlands which can amply compete on the world market. Quite the contrary, you